How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 What Obama Admin SHOULD have Done in Gul   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

What Obama Admin SHOULD have Done in Gulf Oil Crisis

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


75 posted 06-12-2010 03:29 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Is there racial and gender bias, Bob, or could it be due mostly to the fact that not enough women and minorities run for office?

Joseph Hayne Rainey was the first black to serve in the House of Representatives beginning in 1870 and the first black to preside over the House as Speaker (pro tempore) in 1874.
http://baic.house.gov/member-profiles/profile.html?intID=11

I think that perhaps we as Americans are not as biased as some would like to believe.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


76 posted 06-12-2010 06:53 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Excuse of the day...

"I think it's fair to say, if six months ago, before this spill had happened, I had gone up to Congress and I had said we need to crack down a lot harder on oil companies and we need to spend more money on technology to respond in case of a catastrophic spill, there are folks up there, who will not be named, who would have said this is classic, big-government overregulation and wasteful spending," Obama said in an interview with Politico. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_oil_spill_obama

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


77 posted 06-12-2010 07:05 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

British politicians have called for Obama to stop "bashing Britain" over the BP oil spill. Why are they standing up for the mega-corporation?

Financially, the British need a successful BP: BP certainly "deserves criticism," says Malcolm Rifkind in the London Times, but millions of British people have a "significant" financial interest in the company. In fact, 1 in every 7 dollars that British pension funds receive comes from dividends paid out by BP. If dividends are suspended, as Obama has suggested, then 18 million Brits will suddenly "find a severe gap" in their pension income. No wonder we're defending BP.
"That's enough 'kicking ass,' Mr. President"

Obama's trying to pin America's guilt on BP: The disaster isn't all BP's fault, says Simon Jenkins in the Huffington Post. American rig-contractor Halliburton and rig owner Transocean had a hand in this, too, as did feckless U.S. regulators. And don't forget the root of the problem "America's thirst for oil." Obama's "daily litany of abuse" against BP is just an attempt to blame a "foreign bogeyman" for a disaster that was made in America.

Hurting BP hurts America, too: We should not forget that BP is an American company too, says Andrew Clark at Britain's Guardian. It has 29,000 American employees, and the U.S. owns 39 percent of its stock. "A collapse of BP would destroy livelihoods, damage pension funds, and wipe out savings on both sides of the Atlantic." Critics in the U.S. rushing to "play executioner" should be "careful what they wish for."

BP spill: Is it the right time for Obama's criminal inquiry?
The Obama administration is scouring the BP oil spill for clues of a crime, but some commentators argue that an investigation is just a distraction

Do BP's big donations to Obama matter?
The president has received more in political contributions from BP than any other federal candidate in the last 20 years. Is that fact important?

http://theweek.com/article/briefing_blog/147/bp-spill-obamas-cold-fish-problem


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


78 posted 06-12-2010 08:56 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     So, if I get this right, my friends on the Right are suggesting that we bail out BP.  We can also, you know, sue some of the other companies involved.  Halliburton is only American when it wants to be.  It's offices are in Dubai, and it says that it's iuncorporated there so it doesn't have to pay all sorts of taxes here that you and I have to pay.  Have you checked their income tax liability or how much they've spent on social security withholding for their workers?

     As for Transamerica, despite the patriotic name, it's a Swiss company.  They're all transnationals, Mike, and they're all trying to wiggle out of paying for misrepresenting themselves and the project to congress and to the admittedly tame regulators.  If you'd had your way, though, Mr. Business is too tied up with regulations already, we wouldn't even have the lies on paper from them that we do have that promise to protect the walruses in the Gulf of Mexico, and that leave the phone numbers of people already dead when the papers were submitted to contact in case something went wrong.

     The British Royal Family apparently also owns some of BP as well.  If you own any one of a number of funds, you may as well.  So what?  The directors are not supposed to make this sort of decision, and the directors should have exercised closer supervision.  Have you checked into the recent quarterly profits of BP?  Profits, not gross?  The amounts talked about ten billion dollars, and far too low at that, to cover what will probably be the damages might put a ding in the quarterly profits from the last quarter.  

     I must confess to a sense of utter desolation.  Where have I put my fainting couch?

     The republicans must come riding to the rescue of the people who will probably get along fairly well at the expense of those who probably won't.  I am overcome by your gallantry!  Perhaps the price of retrofitting all those oil and gas platforms up to standard will provide a little extra employment for the folks down there while the fish decide whether they'll die off entirely or make some sort of comeback.

     Here's an outcome that should delight you, Mike, if the barrier islands and wetlands die off, the fish poipulation should shoot up while the wildlife feasts on the last remains of the former ecology.  Then, of course, there will be a major die-off of most of the aquatic fauna since there will be no self-renewing ecology to support them.  We may be able to head that one off, with some luck.

        
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


79 posted 06-12-2010 09:21 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

  Here's an outcome that should delight you, Mike, if the barrier islands and wetlands die off, the fish poipulation should shoot up while the wildlife feasts on the last remains of the former ecology.  Then, of course, there will be a major die-off of most of the aquatic fauna since there will be no self-renewing ecology to support them.

Thank you for reminding me of how you are incapable of responding without  crass insults, Bob.

...and, no, you didn't get it right but then, you seldom do.

Please show me anywhere I said we should bail out BP, Bob. All I did was to post comments from the British press to show their take on it. I said nothign about agreeing with anything. Sometimes it's just interesting to see what both sides are saying...ofcourse, you may not agree with that.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


80 posted 06-12-2010 09:28 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

How about the blame game by this administration stops, and serious leadership be exhibited and an all-out effort be made at cleanup and protecting the eco-system?

Huckabee just had on a bunch of folks demonstrating different products to clean the oil from water, from hay to a material something like a Sham-Wow to a product made from the enzymes in beeswax that when churned in the water (as by waves) forms a protective barrier keeping the water below and the oil on top, and when the oil is fully absorbed and broken down, the material becomes a harmless food for the fish and wildlife. THIS is where the focus needs to be.

Huckabee quoting Larry the Cable Guy: "Let's git 'er done!"
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


81 posted 06-13-2010 09:11 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     If you wish you be clear which parts of the statement are yours and which parts belong to other people, put the parts that belong to other people in quotation marks, Mike.  The convention is that boldface is for emphasis.  Quotation within a quotation is done with single quotation marks ('like the ones around this phrase,' as I said in the unpublished essay I quoted from in my article in last October's fictional issue of Pedants Anonymous Unleashed) rather than the standard quotation marks ("like the ones that suggest that this statement is a quotation," said Bob).  

     I've noticed the convention here seems to be to block off the quotation

quote:

as though this were the quotation I were talking about rather than an extension of the text itself.



and add the attribution at some point.  If obvious, then the blocking off seems to serve as notice that the text so marked is a quotation.

     Should you wish to have your comments recognized as a quotation and the fruits of another's labor rather than the fruits of yours, it is customary to make this clear in one of these fairly straightforward fashions.  Failure to do so may be a violation of copyright law.  Doing so inexplicitly is an invitation to have other people confuse the work of other people with your own.  

     The author is generally considered to be responsible for mistakes like this.  The reader can only do his or her best with the text available.

     If you want to be understood, make sure that the form of the writing is clear, Mike; and that includes which part of the writing is yours and which part is written by somebody else.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


82 posted 06-13-2010 09:50 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     Okay, this is more complex than it appears at first.  Ive picked a couple of articles that seem to cover at least some of the issues in an even-handed and interesting way.  That means that I dont love everything that that have to say, but I find them interesting, and they cast the situation in a light that forces me to learn stuff.

     Hopefully, if my friends on the Right can tolerate reading through, they will find stuff that will be of interest to them, and stuff that theyll find difficult as well.  Thats what taking a new look at things is all about.  Id be interested in hearing what anybody whos had a chance to read these things wants to say.

     Try to read everything, if you can tolerate it, not just the stuff that you agree with.  Or not.  My control pretty much stops once I press the send button, doesnt it?


Who pays for cleanup?:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/boehner-government--ie-taxpayers--should-help-pay-for-oil-spill.php

Free Market and the Oil Spill:
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2010/05/25/republican-support-u-s-citizen-british-oil-give-aways-pay-for-it-later-50-years-later/

What are the apparent distortions involved here by the Democrats?
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/phony-big-oil-bailout-claims/
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


83 posted 06-14-2010 07:04 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

"Who is in charge of stopping the oil leak and the cleanup in the Gulf of Mexico -- BP or the Obama administration? If you have a hard time answering the question, it probably is because the president has told us the 'buck stops' with him and officials of his administration say they are 'in charge.' Yet the administration also tells us that BP has the responsibility for stopping the leak and for the cleanup -- but the company's every action has to be approved by the government. If you have noticed a lot of ambiguity in the statements of the government officials, that is because they want to be able to position themselves to take credit for whatever success occurs (no matter who is responsible for the success) yet be able to blame others for failure (if even their own). ... One, among several, major reasons government agencies tend not to perform as well as private ones is because often there is little or no accountability. Those in favor of bigger government are using BP as an example of why the private sector cannot be trusted and why we must have more government. However, they conveniently overlook the fact that everything BP did was overseen and approved by the U.S. government and that the reason BP and the other big oil companies are off drilling in mile-deep water is because this same government will not allow them to drill in closer-in, shallower water or on much of the land where large quantities of oil are known to exist (e.g., the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) and where accidents could be handled quickly and with little damage. BP stockholders are being severely punished because of the failure of BP's management to prevent this crisis -- and you can bet many heads will roll at BP. Yet how many heads will roll in the U.S. government, which had the responsibility to make sure BP operated safely and that the beaches and marshes were protected?" --Cato Institute senior fellow Richard W. Rahn
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


84 posted 06-15-2010 01:50 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     What is your thought on the matter, Mike?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


85 posted 06-15-2010 08:19 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Good question, Bob. I wish I were knowledgeable enough about oil spills to offer advice.

My opinion, which should come as no surprise to you, is that Obama has dropped the ball and is floundering. He said at the beginning that the government was on top of it and BP was under their command. When a quick solution was not forthcoming that story changed. Government response was extremely slow. Jindal put in a request for 26 sand booms and waited three weeks for a response which, when it came, authorized six and made the point of telling him Louisiana would have to pay for five of them. When public furor demanded some action, Obama responded with a suspension of all oil drilling, which made no sense, having nothing to do with anything. When public furor over the suspension of drilling, due to jobs lost, Obama reversed it. He is showing he has no idea what to do and is simply going on knee-jerk reactions. His lack of experience in both business and leadership is becoming more obvious.

He would not meet with the BP CEO, claiming that he wanted "actions, not words" and yet his own activities are words, trips to the coast to talk to people, press conferences to talk to people....just a lot of talk, which people are not buying. Residents also want action, not talk. BP should be castrated. They should certainly be forced to pay every penny this catastrophe will cost...and then some. I think Obama will use this tragedy to push his own agendas, like cap and trade. He will not let it go to waste, personally, but will use it to his own advantage.

The question people should be asking is...why does BP or anyone have to drill in mile deep water, where dealing with this type of situation is so difficult? No one will address that, though, because it involves the EPA.

George Bush can thank his lucky stars that he is not president through this. if he were, he would have already been dipped in that same oil, covered with feathers and set on fire. You would see exactly the opposite of the pass Obama is getting....believe it.

A girl I went to high school with just had her interview posted in the Gold Coast Chronicle. There is a lot of sense in it, I believe..

By Cheryl Tracy
GCC/Staff
June 14, 2010

I recently interviewed a friend of mine who is with the EPA, his name is Robert Hodam.

I asked him what he thought about the British Petroleum oil spill. He gave me permission to share this information with you.



Tracy: What is your job with Cal. EPA?

Hodam: My current job at Cal EPA requires me to do “fate and transport” analysis of gasoline and diesel spills prior to cleanup.

We can predict where a spill will go, the chemical composition when it gets there, the aquatic toxicology of that composition, and the best method of cleanup given that composition.

It is possible to describe petroleum (crude oil, gasoline, and diesel) spills by two criteria: aesthetic and toxic; how it looks and smells and how it affects the health of humans and other organisms.

The subjective aesthetics of oil spills is repulsive to almost everyone. Most people are appalled by the ‘chemical’ smell and nasty sticky appearance of petroleum spills (odd since oil is the most organic of Mother Nature’s chemicals – petroleum is, after all, not man-made.

For that matter both gasoline and diesel occur naturally in many oil deposits.

Therefore one objective of spill “cleanup” is reducing the opportunity for humans to come into contact with the spill on black oily beaches.

Keep the oil underground or underwater.

Dispersants are frequently used for this purpose, keeping oil below the surface of water. Limiting offshore drilling to 25-50 miles is another approach.

The probability of oil traveling such a distance, reaching the shore, and becoming visible is much less.

Toxicity, however, is more objective. Toxicity is always a function of dose and organism.

Of course, petroleum is not toxic to all organisms, certain bacteria thrive eating natural leaks of petroleum, and those organisms are currently blooming rapidly in the warm water of the Gulf producing the long red emulsions seen in aerial photos of the oil slick.

Therefore one objective of the cleanup is to keep the oil at sea as long as possible to allow bacteria to consume as much of the dense oil as possible and to allow the volatile fractions to evaporate.

The rate, of both bacterial bloom and evaporation, increases with water temperature.

Given enough time Mother Nature will dispose of all of the leaked oil — so how long is long enough?

The majority of pure gasoline or diesel will be consumed or evaporated within weeks or months of a spill in warm water. The longer one can keep the oil at sea, the less will be left to come ashore.

The longer the oil stays at sea also allows it to disperse. Dispersion (dilution) lowers the effective dose to less toxic levels.

The US EPS measures aquatic toxicity against several organisms: algae, “water fleas”, bacteria, “fathead minnows”, smelt, and abalone.

The benchmarks are “observable effects”, reproductive effects, growth effects, and mortality.

With some chemicals algae may be adversely affected, while abalone may show no adverse effects at the same dose.

Abalone may stop growing, while humans show no effect at the same dose, etc.

All organisms in nature have been subjected to naturally occurring oil leaks and ocean spills since the beginning of time.

Over millions of years all existing organisms have evolved being subjected to water contaminated with naturally occurring petroleum chemicals such as benzene, toluene, xylem, and ethylene.

To some extent they are already adapted to drinking water containing benzene.

Marine mega fauna such as pelicans most frequently suffer mortality from hypothermia or drowning rather than toxicity per se.

Gruesome no doubt, but the cure is hand cleaning, here I think Obama’s cleanup effort appears to have failed.

Relatively little oil has washed ashore in the Gulf compared to the Exxon Valdez, yet the cleaning of birds appears to be ineffective. With relatively few birds affected there is no excuse for any of them drowning?

The big toxicity question is whether the water fleas that eat the oil-eating bacteria thrive, if they do then the threat to shrimp will be limited to those areas where the oil is consumed most rapidly and thus reducing the oxygen levels so that oysters and shrimp suffocate.

I would guess oysters will be most affected because they will be in shallower water with limited mixing than shrimp — and they are immotile (they can’t swim to less contaminated high-oxygen water).



Tracy: Why in the world hasn’t a reporter in the mainstream media interviewed someone knowledgeable and relayed this information to the general public?

It would make a great difference in attitudes to have a slight understanding of some facts.



Hodam: Good question, this knowledge is certainly no secret. Everything I just told you is in federal EPA publications.

There are 20 people in my group at CALEPA who do site assessment and cleanup of gasoline/diesel leaks every day (we have fresh leaks daily.

All 50 states have such a program; the federal EPA has a petroleum product cleanup program that supports the state programs.

Typically we are dealing with leaks from gas stations’ underground tanks.

The objective there is to ensure drinking water is not contaminated by confining the plume until the bugs can eat the bits we are not able to suck out through monitoring wells).

We depend on natural “biodegradability” of gasoline and oil to do the fine particle cleanup.

We drill wells to monitor CO2 in the soil or groundwater. The greater the bacterial consumption of oil, the higher the CO2 level.

We inject oxygen to keep the contaminated environment aerobic because aerobic bacteria metabolize oil much faster.

The BP response from “day one” seemed oddly befuddled to me.



If I had been in charge, I would have done it as follows:



1) don’t put out the fire! Burn the oil at sea, doesn’t let it float ashore.



2) inject dispersant at the well head ASAP to increase the ‘availability’ of the oil to bacteria (i.e., reduce particle size to increase the exposed surface area the bacteria can attack and make sure the dispersant used is not toxic to bacteria!)



3) boom around the leak, trying to boom along the shore is a thousand times more difficult



4) fly dispersant planes to spray the thin film that escapes the boom, the thinner the film the greater the surface area and thus the faster it can evaporate



5) recruit and station at some central point a large group (10,000+) of LEGAL workers drawn from the ranks of the unemployed to be helicopter out to places where oil is reaching shore.



6) Activate the National Guard flight detachments for helicopter transport of workers. Returning flights can bring in contaminated birds and rescue animals found in recon flights.

Fly in Army engineers with bull dozers (a Chinook can lift a D8 Caterpillar dozer) to construct temporary sand berms in shallow water along the most critical shore lines.

Last time I checked, Obama in commander-in-chief, he could make all these obvious actions happen within the US government

Tracy: Thank Mr. Hadam, we will talk again.



Source: Cheryl Tracy



Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


86 posted 06-15-2010 03:33 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

You want to see a REAL shame???????

Take Foreign Governments Up On Their Offers for Aid

When the federal government isn’t sapping the initiative and expertise of local governments, it has been preventing foreign governments from helping. Just three days after the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the Dutch government offered to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms and proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands. LA Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) supported the idea, but the Obama administration refused the help. Thirteen countries have offered to help us clean up the Gulf, and the Obama administration has turned them all down.

According to one Dutch newspaper, European firms could complete the oil spill cleanup by themselves in just four months, and three months if they work with the United States, which is much faster than the estimated nine months it would take the Obama administration to go at it alone. The major stumbling block is a protectionist piece of legislation called the Jones Act which requires that all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried in U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens. But, in an emergency, this law can be temporarily waived, as DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff did after Katrina. Each day our European allies are prevented from helping us speed up the cleanup is another day that Gulf fishing and tourism jobs die.

http://askheritage.org/Answer.aspx?ID=1038

Obama has no idea what to do but prevents other countries to help. Can even a democrat support that????
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


87 posted 06-15-2010 03:49 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

http://www.rnw.nl/english/bulletin/dutch-help-us-oil-spill-clean

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


88 posted 06-15-2010 08:41 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

That may be the way it was supposed to happen, Grinch, but it hasn't worked out that way.

There is a link in my entry which leads to a dutch newspaper dated June 7. it is in Dutch. Using BabelFish, I translated this part of it...

BRUSSELS - Belgian and Dutch dredgers have to technology in house fight the oil calamity in the golf of Mexico. But the `Jones Act' prohibits them in the US work.

`American autoriteiten' , spokesman says Hubert Fiers of the Belgian muds and environment group Deme, `value that they nine have months necessary does odd jobs to manage. We can that in four months. And if we cooperate, is possible af' there perhaps still a month;. Deme can say use to own at zowat each aspect of the fight against oil technology which is in the US not available.

The Americans have a serious technological delay, a consequence of the Jones Act'.


The translation is not perfect but it is clear enough to say that, by June 7th, they have not been allowed to work there, due to the Jones Act.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


89 posted 06-15-2010 09:16 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Three days after the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, the Dutch government offered to help.

It was willing to provide ships outfitted with oil-skimming booms, and it proposed a plan for building sand barriers to protect sensitive marshlands.

The response from the Obama administration and BP, which are coordinating the cleanup: “The embassy got a nice letter from the administration that said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,'” said Geert Visser, consul general for the Netherlands in Houston.

Now, almost seven weeks later, as the oil spewing from the battered well spreads across the Gulf and soils pristine beaches and coastline, BP and our government have reconsidered.

U.S. ships are being outfitted this week with four pairs of the skimming booms airlifted from the Netherlands and should be deployed within days. Each pair can process 5 million gallons of water a day, removing 20,000 tons of oil and sludge.

At that rate, how much more oil could have been removed from the Gulf during the past month?

The uncoordinated response to an offer of assistance has become characteristic of this disaster's response. Too often, BP and the government don't seem to know what the other is doing, and the response has seemed too slow and too confused.

Federal law has also hampered the assistance. The Jones Act, the maritime law that requires all goods be carried in U.S. waters by U.S.-flagged ships, has prevented Dutch ships with spill-fighting equipment from entering U.S. coastal areas.

“What's wrong with accepting outside help?” Visser asked. “If there's a country that's experienced with building dikes and managing water, it's the Netherlands.”

Even if, three days after the rig exploded, it seemed as if the Dutch equipment and expertise wasn't needed, wouldn't it have been better to accept it, to err on the side of having too many resources available rather than not enough?

BP has been inundated with well-intentioned cleanup suggestions, but the Dutch offer was different. It came through official channels, from a government offering to share its demonstrated expertise.

Many in the U.S., including the president, have expressed frustration with the handling of the cleanup. In the Netherlands, the response would have been different, Visser said.

There, the government owns the cleanup equipment, including the skimmers now being deployed in the Gulf.

“If there's a spill in the Netherlands, we give the oil companies 12 hours to react,” he said.

If the response is inadequate or the companies are unprepared, the government takes over and sends the companies the bill.

While the skimmers should soon be in use, the plan for building sand barriers remains more uncertain. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal supports the idea, and the Coast Guard has tentatively approved the pro-ject. One of the proposals being considered was developed by the Dutch marine contractor Van Oord and Deltares, a Dutch research institute that specializes in environmental issues in deltas, coastal areas and rivers. They have a strategy to begin building 60-mile-long sand dikes within three weeks.

That proposal, like the offer for skimmers, was rebuffed but later accepted by the government. BP has begun paying about $360 million to cover the costs. Once again, though, the Jones Act may be getting in the way. American dredging companies, which lack the dike-building expertise of the Dutch, want to do the work themselves, Visser said.

“We don't want to take over, but we have the equipment,” he said.

While he battles the bureaucracy, the people of Louisiana suffer, their livelihoods in jeopardy from the onslaught of oil.

“Let's forget about politics; let's get it done,” Visser said.
http://slumz.boxden.com/f5/jun-15-obama-refused-foreign-aid-oil-leak-1383954/
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


90 posted 06-15-2010 09:20 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

An interesting view from Radio Netherlands Worldwide..

Now that it matters, President Obama’s famous eloquence seems to have evaporated. He expresses his sympathy, reading from a prepared text, and suggests that victims visit the White House website for information.

According to Radio Netherlands Worldwide’s senior foreign affairs correspondent Bernard Hammelburg, Mr Obama’s energy needs trumped those of the environment. But the president fails to explain that. And besides, he should talk to the fishermen, not to the governors.

A true president would show compassion and take charge. That’s his job.

  http://www.rnw.nl/english/video/obama-criticised-over-handling-oil-spill
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


91 posted 06-15-2010 09:25 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer


Spain, Netherlands and EU to help US clean up oil spill

Spain, the Netherlands and the European Union have offered equipment to help the United States clean up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the European Commission said Friday.

US authorities have been struggling for weeks to repair the damage provoked by a ruptured well from an off-shore BP platform, which the company is trying to close with the so-called "top kill" operation, DPA reported.

The EU's executive said that following a request received Thursday from the US Coast Guard, "three complete sets of rigid sweeping arms" - a specific type of skimmers that can be attached to a ship to recover oil - are expected to be lent to the United States for up to three months.

"We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our American friends as they work to deal with this environmental disaster," said the EU's Humanitarian Aid Commissioner, Kristalina Georgieva.

The commission said it is ready to ship the aid to Houston and/or New Orleans. The transport, handling and maintenance costs are to be borne out by a US contracted company, it specified.
http://en.trend.az/regions/world/usa/1695829.html

All of these countries immediately offered friendship and help in dealing with the oil crisis...and were not given permission by our government. If that can't make even a lefty mad, I'm at a loss.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


92 posted 06-15-2010 09:32 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Civil Disobedience, Jindal style:
http://www.newpatriotjournal.com/Articles/Gov_Bobby_Jindal_Defies_Obama_Administration_Begins_Building_Barrier_Walls_Off_Louisiana_Coast

Now this is a true leader. I love this guy.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


93 posted 06-16-2010 01:51 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I'm sorry, Mike.  You seem to have forgotten that you are the guy from the party that's against big government , government interference, government regulation and such.  At what point do you believe that The Republicans would have been in favor of such stuff or wouldn't have attempted to block it had it been proposed?  Especially by a democratic government.

     I think that the stuff is all very good, by the way, but I have my doubts that any such proposal prior to this current disaster wouldn't have met as large a block as the Republicans could have mustered.  Including, my friend, by you.

     It's all very well for you to come up with various criticisms at this point, some of them, by the way, valid.  It's quite another for you to suggest that you would have supported any of them outside an absolute emergency.  It's just within the last week or so that Rep. Boehner has changed his statement from "BP AND THE GOVERNMENT should clean up the oilspill" to "BP should clean it up and take full Responsibility, and I've never said anything else."  In this he's echoed the President of the US Chamber of Commerce.

     There may be new technology out there that might make a difference, but I haven't seem BP in any hurry to deploy it.  Both BP and the Government have been buried by advice, which is one of the problems with situations of this sort, indeed problems with disasters in general.  If you'll remember, it was one of the problems with 9/11, where we were buried in information with little way of sorting out which information was important and should be turned to first.  After the fact, everybody is willing to say, "If only you'd listened to x or y or z, the everybody would have done the right thing. Everything would have been fine."  It's failures of critical path analysis that tend to hit us hardest.

     What you've been suggesting above is that if you weren't ideologically wedded to small government, lack of regulation, and depending on private business rather than government and had instead been able to consider that regulation of drilling, insistance on monitoring of quality standards and on monitoring of corporations complying with their promises and the like were important then the whole thing could have been prevented.  Much of it might have been prevented in that case, perhaps.  But you didn't believe in any of it, and would have fought to prevent it because it would have discouraged business in your opinion.  You would have been unlikely to ask if this is the sort of business you wanted to encourage.

     In fact, the Senior President Bush felt that drilling even in shallow water was a big risk, and he shut it down after the huge Ixtac disaster in 1979 which dumped, what, 169,000,000 barrels of crude into the gulf over nine months from a shallow water site in about 200 feet of water.  The treatment we have available has not, according to the oil companies testimony before congress, progressed since that time, though we can sure drill deeper now.  

     No, the government is not responsible since the oil companies have been lying to them about what they can take care of and have been presenting doctored plans about what they're capable of cleaning up.  BP, which is one of the most progressive of the oil companies, and which actually has put some money into non-hydrocarbon fuel sources, needs to pony up and take care of it.  If the cost is high enough, then it will soak into the institutional memory of the oil indiustry that they have to keep up with the safety issues.  Otherwise, it won't.

     When congress asked the CEO's about the Ixtac oil spill today in congress, all you heard was the sound of tweeting birds and silence.  None of them knew anything.  They have to learn that this sort of thing needs to be on their mind all the time, and that safety is part of the cost of doing business.  Not paying off law-suits.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


94 posted 06-16-2010 07:55 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Not even a good try, Bob..

The US was offered immediate assistance from countries with the equipment, experience and know-how to clean up the mess in the most efficient way possible....and they turned it down. As a result, the catastrophe will be much larger than it could have been, more lives will be lost and more livelihoods destroyed. This is despicable. If you don't find it so, then you are speaking as a Democrat and not an American.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


95 posted 06-16-2010 01:44 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

He can no longer be Vatican observer

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677//vp/37719896#37719896

Ouch.
Especially given the source . . .
.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


96 posted 06-16-2010 02:29 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/US_taps_into_foreign_assistance_for_Gulf_oil_spill_999.html

.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


97 posted 06-16-2010 08:28 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

The US State Department said it is now playing an active role in the oil spill response coordinated by President Barack Obama's administration.

NOW playing an active role?....dated June 14th?...from the administration that says it has been on it since day one?

It's all CYA material.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


98 posted 06-16-2010 11:11 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     CYA material?

     Until recently, the Republicans have been pushing for a government clean-up.  And who might be funding that, Mike?  It's only within the last week or so that Boehner has come around to saying that the cost needs to be covered by BP.  Not all Republicans agree.  Haley Barber is still down-playing the effects of the spill.  You, sir, are the guy who's in favor of DRILL, BABY, DRILL and who was telling us during the presidential campaign that fears of oil spills were environmental paranoia.  You are still trying to lay blame on the Democrats.

     Pardon me while I cough up hairballs.

     It was Bush Senior who put the Off Shore drilling on hold after some of the oil leaks of his era, and it was Bush Junior who tried to push the congress into lifting the ban.

     One of my problems with President Obama is that I believe he allowed himself to be pushed into allowing any off-shore drilling at all.  It was ill-considered and Republican-Lite policy that opened the way for this sort of stuff.  The Republicans at the time were critical that Obama didn't allow further opening up of off-shore drilling, not that he allowed such a limited amount of it.  Perhaps you made statements saying that Obama should have stopped all off-shore drilling at the time.  If you did, please, reference them, and I'll be thrilled to chow down on my words with a side of humble pie.  

     I've got the side dish ready, right here, Mike, and I'm willing to write a moving speech all about my despicable mistake.  Simply give me grounds to do so, including a few choice quotes of your criticism of President Obama for his unwillingness to block further drilling dated during the critical election period and in proper context.  I'm yours, guy; feel free.  Set To, Mike.  Have at.

     While you're at it, should you happen to run across any by some remote chance or freak of nature by accident as it were should you happen to find any old comments of yours lying around about the harmlessness of drilling or the necessity of drilling or anything like that, maybe you might pass those along as well?

     Probably too much trouble, I'm sure.

     And you certainly don't want your actions to be motivated by any impertinent requests from me.

     It's true, I do have a lot of nerve.

     Perhaps this might be a good time to forget I even brought the subject up.

     Certainly it'd be a good time to toss a few remarks at me, don't you think?  Don't you think I'm beneath your notice at times like this?

     Stuff like that.

     My understanding is that BP has been in charge and the Government has been giving support.

     You may have forgotten, but the Right wing in this country is very critical of what it sees as attempts from the government to "nationalize" industries.  It uses this sort of things in its continual game of political kickball.  I don't fault the Right for doing so; this is politics, and one uses what comes to hand to gain advantage.  The process and the results are not always pretty.

     In recent times, for example, and in these pages, we have spoken about  what the Right has from time to time characterized as left wing efforts to "nationalize" the auto industry and health care.  Reluctance on the part of the administration to open itself to charges of attempting to "nationalize" BP by taking over the response would not be an outlandish expectation.  

     Allowing that expectation to stop the administration from taking a more active role may certainly have been stupid on the part of the administration.  The Right will and certainly would have found some sort of telling spin or criticism to level in any event.  The spin of the administration potentially attempting to "nationalize" another industry wouldn't actually have made much difference.  It certainly in hindsight would have been preferable to allowing BP to be in charge of the data on the spill and its release to the public.

     BP's estimate of 5000 barrels of oil a day or less was helpful for BP because it helped limit the perception of that companies financial losses, which are, partially, calculated on a per barrel basis.  Sadly, it meant that the amount of effort brought to bear on dealing with the spill was proportionately smaller than it needed to be from the beginning.

     On Rachel Maddow yesterday I heard one estimate of 60,000 barrels per day.

     Actual knowledge of such estimates might have forced BP to accept more government help more quickly, and might have forced the government to deal with the situation differently more quickly. Or not.  I have my hopes and fears on the matter, just as everybody else does.  "What if" is a great game without method for determining a winner.

     For example, "What if" we had an accurate read on the size of the spill from the early days of the spill?  Would that have been a game changer?

     "What if" Obama had not permitted any drilling at all?

     And "What if" Bush hadn't suspended the ban on new deep water oil drilling?

     Wish I knew.

    



      
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


99 posted 06-16-2010 11:34 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

You're suffering from the same disease, Bob, thinking that by responding  by repeating Bush half a dozen times to change the subject you can avoid what you don't want to discuss.  

Obama refused to allow the Dutch and other countries to help for over a month. Bush did not tell him to do so. Bush did not refuse to suspend the Jones Act, as he had done during Katrina.  It was all Obama and apparently you support that decision. Don't expect the people of the Gulf, or any American who loves this country, to agree with you.

Good luck with those hairballs...did Bush give them to you???
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> What Obama Admin SHOULD have Done in Gul   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors